Tuesday, July 15, 2014

The Thuggery, Buggery, and Skulduggery of the Left, or Welcome to Our New Underlords

Perhaps the last paragraph of yesterday's post was obscure. In plain English, Obama ultimately wants to reconstitute the American electorate into a permanent LoFo Democrat majority. He knows that if we fail to implement effective border security now, we will never do so. Thus, for the left this is not a human catastrophe but an anti-human opportunity.

Ironically, given their predictable voting patterns, the malleable LoFos invading Texas, California, Arizona and elsewhere will transform America into exactly the type of nation from which they are fleeing: an authoritarian state in bed with its capitalist cronies and clients. Forgive them, for they know not what they are doing, nor will they ever know so long as the left controls public education. For the left this is a perfect shitstorm of power and ignorance, up there with the New Deal and Great Society: the New Society.

In a way, I understand. I would not be overly distressed if we were flooded with illegal Republicans who share our values, from Cuba, eastern Europe, Israel, wherever. I would of course prefer to win on the field of intellectual battle, but that is a battle in which the left will wisely never engage -- and certainly not honestly.

Therefore, their only options for maintaining political viability are extra-democratic ones such as judicial tyranny, administrative law (a permanent administrative state beyond the reach of any democratic check), control of the media and other institutions, racial demagoguery, identity politics, IRS thuggery, public employee unions, and now demographic swamping. Once the latter bears its inevitable fruit, they can then claim to have been the democrats all along. And since media and academic losers write the first and last rough drafts of revisionist history, he's got that angle covered as well.

Yes, it is demonic. Why? Because while the luciferic is simply devoid of or indifferent to the Light, the demonic actively works in opposition to it. America is still the political light of the world -- in his disordered soul, even the liberal must dimly recognize this, for why would all these wretches want to come here? -- but they won't rest until the light is extinguished and we are finally not a smidgen less exceptional than Greece or Mexico or Detroit.

Now, back to our Top Ten Cosmic Principles. As mentioned, I recently read Russell Kirk's memoirs, which prompted me to reopen his classic The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot. In the latter he talks about the often unstated principles that animate conservatives of various stripes.

However he is very cautious about making them too concrete, because this could conceivably become reified into an ideology, when conservatism is, as he says, the rejection of ideology. In other words, it is rooted in experience, in tradition, in the "permanent things," not in the high abstractions that animate -- or better, nihilize -- the leftist mind.

With that in mind, he mentions six broad properties which strike me as reasonable. Since we don't have all day, I will paraphrase them; they include belief in a transcendent order; appreciation of the ineluctable mystery of human existence, such that no manmade system can exhaust it; recognition of order rooted in vertical hierarchy; freedom (which is necessarily related to property, thus creating an inviolate realm of sovereignty beyond the reach of the state); faith in custom, convention, and the accumulated wisdom of mankind; and an appreciation of change as the means of preservation, as opposed to radical change, which damages or destroys what needs to be preserved.

To boil it down further, we could say Transcendence, Mystery, Hierarchy, Liberty, Tradition, and Healthy Change (i.e., that change needed in order to secure and extend the permanent things, e.g., life, liberty, justice, etc.).

Yes, you could say this is pretty low hanging fruit. Who could possibly take issue with such a salubrious and soul-fortifying list?

The left, that's who!

Example?

Well, as the old cliche goes, fascism is violent opposition to transcendence. Thus the left isn't necessarily fascistic, since (at least in America) they mostly practice nonviolent opposition to transcendence.

Then again, so long as they appropriate the levers of state power to deny transcendence, that is implicitly violent, isn't it? For example, if the state wants to force Catholic employers at gunpoint to pay for abortions, what do you call that? I'm not even talking about the violence perpetrated on the baby, but the violence directed at the conscience, which is our most obvious and intimate evidence of transcendence.

The Obama administration is at the center of the two (at least) most consequential scandals in our nation's history, the fraudulent passage of Obamacare (probably the greatest consumer fraud in human history), and the enlistment of the IRS to intimidate and silence private citizens in order to steal an election. In the first, they took aim at our bodies; in the second, at our property. What's left? Yes, the soul, but the soul needs both a body and freedom in order to actualize.

Second, the left is transparently at war with the mystery of life. This comes out in any number of ways. What is scientism, for example, but the radical demystification of life? What is a secular "sex education" but the rebarbarization of man?

In other words, what they call "human sexuality" is quite literally subhuman sexuality; not liberation but servility. What is metaphysical Darwinism but the animalization of man? It cures us of the mystery of the human soul, just as feminism cures women of their divine femininity, and multiculturalism rids us of the delusion that truth exists. (Or as the postmodern leftist says: "There is no truth, and we possess it. Or else.)

The third is obvious: class warfare, or a belief that justice is a horizontal concept rather than vertical. In reality, a classless society would be the last word in injustice, since it would force uniformity upon everyone, such that life would no longer be worth living (or a truly human life would be unattainable).

In contrast, conservatives cherish the individual, and the individual cannot be shoved into some preordained, abstract category. The left always wants to stick us into categories of race, gender, ethnicity, "sexual orientation," etc., when the individual always transcends these.

The fourth is also easy, liberty and its relationship to property, for where would the left be without envy? Someone else's property is none of our business, and certainly not the business of the state (except to protect it from the acquisitive envy of the left).

Fifth is again easy, for job one of the left is to insist that this is Eden, that we are Adam and Eve (or Steve), and that this time we're gonna get it right by creating a state so powerful and a system so perfect that no one will need to be good (paraphrasing Eliot). Finally, we are the ones we've been waiting for to toss out the priceless wisdom of the species (especially that of dead white males) and start history anew.

In contrast to fundamental transformation... well, in point of fact, conservatives do very much believe in fundamental transformation, only on a personal level, never a collective one. We know it is fanciful to believe that a population of disordered souls can maintain an ordered polis. Rather, personal disorder will only evoke a police state to enforce a top-down order.

Say, how does all this fundamental transformation feel? I don't know abut you, but my butt hurts.

What is it with the left? It's always thuggery, buggery, and skulduggery, 24/7.

31 Comments:

We know it’s useless to debate a lefty. You will never change their mind, but maybe you could shut them up. More importantly, if you happen to be a politician or radio host, the audience decides the winner of the debate, whether or not you’ve made headway with your opponent. I’ve long thought the way to do this is to move the debate vertically. Arguing in the horizontal is pointless - the left already has a prepared answer to every point and every Kos Kid has memorized it.But if you move the debate vertically, toward the principles your view is derived from, the average lefty will flounder - they’re views have no principles supporting them.Think of the an org chart with the top tier (the Cosmic Board of Directors) being the principles you’ve been discussing. As we move down the chart, say by tier 4 or 5, we reach the coon’s horizontal stance on any particular issue, say “ income redistribution is immoral”. Right above that is Liberty and it’s relationship to Property, etc. So by starting at the bottom, and moving up through the org chart, you discover the principles supporting the view and move the debate in that direction.Never engage a leftist on the horizontal with facts, data and logic. Move vertically.

James said " I’ve long thought the way to do this is to move the debate vertically. Arguing in the horizontal is pointless - the left already has a prepared answer to every point and every Kos Kid has memorized it."

Yep. If you hold to the vertical, to principle, they are defenseless. On the other hand, if you step onto their ground, dealing with particulars absent principle, you lose.

One obvious example is the healthcare debate. If you stand on the principle that the govt has no power to violate the rights of those it was created to defend... they have no where to go.

If however, you step into dueling statistics "What are you going to do about 3 million people dying in the streets?!", once you begin negotiating with their statistics, you've ceded your ground and they're going to pound you into it. Our willingness to treat as a respectable position, the notion that quantifiable benefits can make it necessary to abandon actual Quality, Principle, to make laws which have no basis in Law - for the greater good - that is the common path towards abandoning sensible arguments.

I don't have a set of top ten common sense steps (though a deep (as opposed to literal - there was an excellent series of posts on that here a few years ago) approach to the Decalogue, would probably figure into it), but the template would be to establish the hierarchy which the situation fits within, identify the principles it must respect, and establish that abandoning that structure will bring all to ruin in the end.

However he is very cautious about making them too concrete, because this could conceivably become reified into an ideology, when conservatism is, as he says, the rejection of ideology. In other words, it is rooted in experience, in tradition, in the "permanent things," not in the high abstractions that animate -- or better, nihilize -- the leftist mind."

I have found that a leftist hates to have the word "envy" used against them. They stammer and backtrack and deny it. I use it matter-of-factly; "Oh, that is politics of envy." You can nearly see their heads explode. They bring back their argument around a different corner, but it arrives at the same station. I just say it again. Then it usually ends with them calling me a name.

"However he is very cautious about making them too concrete, because this could conceivably become reified into an ideology, when conservatism is, as he says, the rejection of ideology. In other words, it is rooted in experience, in tradition, in the "permanent things," not in the high abstractions that animate -- or better, nihilize -- the leftist mind."

Which is the danger of concretizing principles into particulars. Principles are an aid to thinking, not a replacement for it, and many, the uber-libertarians for instance, are prone to that. Right Reasoning is the process of Prudent thinking, the application of Principled thinking to the particulars of the moment... thinking that the decision which was wise in the context of that moment, can be applied without further thought to all moments, is the transformation of wisdom into ideology.

Say, how does all this fundamental transformation feel? I don't know abut you, but my butt hurts.

Amen. At least when leftists are unhappy with a Republican president, they can go visit Canada for a few years and return to find their country sliding ever more left. We, on the other hand, have nowhere else to go.

Leslie, yes, it is all about envy. At least for now, they stick to calling names...

Uh-oh, this doesn't look too good, from a commie 'friends' page, the book “Blood":

"... ” It is here that Anidjar detects a watershed moment where for the first time biology and soteriology became inseparable.

Anidjar makes two major arguments for this claim. Citing Carolyn Walker Bynum’s Wonder Blood, Anidjar suggests that partaking in the Eucharist had become “a relation of the body and blood of Christ to each other and to his person, and on the other hand, a question of how Christians gain access to the sanguis Christi that saves.” From this vantage point, the Eucharist seems to involve something more than spiritual purification: it also equates the believer’s blood with the blood of Christ.

The implications seem clear enough: Christianity is becoming a biological division between those who do and do not possess the right blood..."http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2014/07/15/blood-a-critique-of-christianity/

Sorta looks like a start at transforming the Christian into the new 'Jew'.

"...” In this reading, the rise of nationalism becomes inseparable from theologico-political context that bases collective identity on blood divisions; the modern state—with its long history of racism—is conceived as a metamorphosis of the medieval body politic; while the circulation of Christ’s blood is linked with the circulation of modern capitalism...."

Take a little bit of truth, mix it with done hate and lies, and viola!

Thanks Julie! The Doc and I had a deep conversation. He knew Patti as well, and has known us for 23 years.I'll blog about it soon 'cause he said some raccoonish things!He's a great Doc and an even greater friend. :^)

Things got plumb out of hand just as I started to read this earlier. There have been times when I would have attributed that to a demonic attack to keep me from hearing the truth. Whether it was or not, it failed. I came back, and I see why.

I think Leslie is right about envy. I think the other place to provoke the left is on freedom. Freedom is a joke in their world; they can't survive in a truly free world.

The violation of conscience thing -- that's about as unAmerican as you can be.

Mushroom made an outstanding comment on my blog and it definitely is worth a read!Hope you don't mind, Mush but I gotta repeat it here:

"I don't know if you've ever seen a raccoon moving around on the ground much, but they have a sort of charming ambling awkwardness about them. Not that they can't cover ground when necessary, but it isn't quite their element. It disappears when they move into the trees and start to climb.

We're the same. A little bumbling and funny-looking in the horizontal dimension because we are made for the vertical. "

Of course it sounds whacked out, but note that this is from a link off my pet commie politico's fb page, note the blog name "The Immanent Frame: Secularism, Religion and the Political Sphere", and its featured post is by a professor of law and religion, "The impossibility of religious freedom", which has this secularist sounding call on the Hobby Lobby case:

"To the extent that these decisions are about religion (and there are certainly other reasons to criticize the reasoning in these opinions), they reveal the rotten core at the heart of all religious freedom laws. The positions of both liberals and conservatives are affected by this rottenness but I speak here to liberals."

The hosting site, "Welcome to the Social Science Research Council, leader in international social science.", is a go to place for the elected and their bureaucrats.

"...Blood is bound to provoke heated discussion, perhaps most notably by those critics who deny that Western Christendom is ultimately responsible for the greatest evils of the age, not to mention those who play up the secular origins of modernity. What Blood does represent, at least for this reader, is the revival of an older way of approaching the debate over Christianity and political modernity, something analogous to a Marxist critique of political theology as presented in On the Jewish Question; yet with the caveat that Anidjar believes the young Marx should have been raising the Christian question. At the same time, Anidjar accepts the thesis of Carl Schmitt, which reduces all significant modern concepts of the state to secularized theological notions. How then can blood, as Anidjar describes, ever be overcome? There seems to be only one obvious solution to this problematic: a revolutionary project of de-theologizing the modern world."

Van,Aye. As I've heard you and Dana Loesch, and others in various ways say, the left's true goal is to turn our rights into "issues" to debate and negotiate away, essentially turning our. rights into privileges that leftist leaders dole out to other leftists, and take away from everyone else.

Rights are rights not issues. Period. Folks who agree will are quickly losing their patience with these slavemasters and ain't about to let them put their chains on us!

Leftism is a death cult, not unlike radical islam,. Hence their sympathies for terrorists. One good thing about this is that leftists sacrifice and eat each,other, rather like demons, they cannot trust each,other.

Links to this post:

About Me

Location: Floating in His Cloud-Hidden Bobservatory, Inside the Centers for Spiritual Disease Control and Pretension, Tonga

Who spirals down the celestial firepole on wings of slack, seizes the wheel of the cosmic bus, and embarks upin a bewilderness adventure of higher nondoodling? Who, haloed be his gnome, loiters on the threshold of the transdimensional doorway, looking for handouts from Petey? Who, with his doppelgägster and testy snideprick, Cousin Dupree, wields the pliers and blowtorch of fine insultainment for the ridicure of assouls? Who is the gentleman loaffeur who yoinks the sword from the stoned philosopher and shoves it in the breadbasket of metaphysical ignorance and tenure? Whose New Testavus for the Restavus blows the locked doors of the empyrean off their rusty old hinges and sheds a beam of intense darkness on the world enigma? Who is the Biggest Fakir of the Vertical Church of God Knows What, channeling the roaring torrent of 〇 into the feeble stream of cyberspace? Who is the masked pandit who lobs the first water balloon out the motel window at the annual Raccoon convention? Who is your nonlocal partner in disorganized crimethink? Shut your mouth! But I'm talkin' about bʘb! Then we can dig it!